My two cents on the sort of dramatic policy Labour will need to win over voters. Think interest-free student loans and go from there

Labour says tomorrow it'll be announcing a new education policy regarding schools. I have no idea what it is, but it's prompted me to quickly write this post that I've been meaning to write for months - what I'd announce if I was Labour looking for a circuit breaker.

It seems this will be education week for Labour, as it promises tomorrow's announcement will just be "the first" of its educations initiatives we'll see this week. The party certainly needs a big policy win to convince voters to take another look at it and shake off the losers aura it has around it at the moment.

If National's canny but underwhelming roading announcement is anything to go by, it seems John Key will be trying to promise as little as possible this campaign, relying on his analysis that there's no great mood for change at the moment and that New Zealanders are happy with a 'steady as she goes' approach this soon after the Global Financial Crisis.

That opens the door for Labour to show greater ambition. Its message has to be that National lacks the vision to take New Zealand (and New Zealand Inc) to the next level. And the foundation of any success as a country is education. There are any number of investments that could be made science and the like, but this suggestion is purely political; an interest-free student loan scheme-type high impact vote winner.

The simple premise is that 'free education' is in New Zealand's DNA. It's one of our proudest legacies as a nation. Clarence Beeby's education system was a world leader, summed up in Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser's famous quote:

"Every person, whatever the level of his academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has the right, as a citizen, to a free education of a kind for which he is best suited and to the fullest extent of his powers."

Tapping into its base and the frustration of the middle classes, Labour should promise a return to truly free education. That is, an end to school fees. The stories come out every year, such as this in 2012 saying parents collectively spend around $250m a year on fees, or this from 2013 when it was shown the most expensive schools were approaching $1000 per annum or this story in January showing that we can pay $35,000 on fees over the school life of a child.

It's a long way from Fraser's dream but it's a dream - like home ownership - that runs deep in our national psyche. Parents would be over the moon to think they could save that much money each year, they'd instantly understand the policy and see virtue in it. And if the cost is around a quarter of a billion a year, that's expensive but inside the self-imposed spending cap. National's committing $359m over four years just for some super teachers, so why not three times that for entirely free education.

Polls of school principles this year show that insufficient operating grants are there number one concern.

The policy would face plenty of fishhooks - would you have to ban schools from taking donations or limit them to certain things? There would be plenty of devil in the detail. And the down side is that it's not terribly progressive; lower decile schools already keep their fees low, so the middle would save more than the poorest.

But imagine the power of heading into an election campaign promising "a return to free education". That's the kind of thing voters could get behind and Labour needs as something as dramatic as that to get back in the game.

Comments (26)

Totally agree Tim, and lets not taint it with the polarising term 'free education'. Just call it simply NZED, and anyone that disagrees is not worthy to be a New Zealander and can leave the country peacfully, and the sooner the better.

Such a policy would be dreadful politics, those paying the highest school "donations" are National voters anyway. There's no votes there.

As for the rest, it's additional tax and spending to subsidise the better off.

Much better to target the funding at decile 1 - 4 schools where it's needed. Better politics too, the money goes further when it's spread amongst a smaller group of people, these are people more sympathetic to the Labour message anyway.

Antoine, I think you've got a point about some candidates, don't agree about partners. But (and this is to Alan too), it's silly to debate whether it's "free" or not, everyone knows what it means. Surely one of the most basic things a state can and should do is to use its collective resources to ensure all children get a high quality and cost-effective education. So "tax and spend"? Using that line on education will only backfire.

Really, free education is a basic right as a citizen without fees and donations.

Honestly, I knew nothing of Labour's plan. But this has just been released... Not exactly on the scale I was suggesting (and perhaps indicative of Labour's timidity at the moment), but on the same page:

Labour will end ‘voluntary’ school donations

Labour will provide an annual grant of $100 per student to schools that stop asking parents for “voluntary” donations to help fund their day-to-day spending, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

“New Zealand has long prided itself on our public school system under which core spending is government funded. It’s unfair to teachers, boards of trustees, parents and kids to expect donations to subsidise running their schools.

“Some schools have adopted dubious tactics to get these so-called voluntary donations including repeatedly sending children home with letters and, in one case, giving children ‘donation paid’ tags to attach to their bags.

“Labour does not believe children should be discriminated against and ostracised because of their parents’ financial situation.

“Schools received $97 million in donations in 2012. The higher the school’s decile, the bigger the donation parents were asked to give. The average donation to a decile one school is $59 but that rises to an average of $278 for decile 10 schools.

“School donations are particularly hard on low income communities with decile one to three parents contributing $10 million a year.

“Under a Labour Government, schools that agree not to solicit donations will be granted $100 per student each year. Schools will still be allowed to charge activity fees.

“Labour is committed to ensuring that New Zealand has a modern, affordable and high quality education system,” David Cunliffe says.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Is he still committed to "ensuring our schools are working for all students", and is he satisfied his Government has done enough to ensure that every child has equal access to a low-cost public education?

So a decile 2 school with 200 pupils would get $20,000. I hope that that would be as well as the decile funding already given to Low decile schools.

Wow - good guessing, Tim. Agree with Alan that the targeting is very smart - schools seeking less than $100 per annum in donations presently actually get a funding rise.

One of our children recently got a donations request from the local kindy their child attends. Is this commonplace as well?

Elizabeth Warren explains this issue regarding school districts/zoning has had the effect of raising the accommodation costs of middle income families in the US by an enormous amount over their childless counterparts who don't need to consider the quality of local primary/secondary education in their accommodation decisions.

Labour's donation subsidy plan is a start but could be a lot more couragous. I reckon if they seriously tackled student loans - do away with them would be good - they would pick up a large amount of the non voters.

Aw shucks, it's the day job, rather than the zeitgeist. And luck! Yes the targetting is clever, but I'm not sure how well it works at the mid- top end. If a school is getting $250/year in donations, will they just not opt in? So is this really just a way for those in low decile communities to not have to pay school fees? Quite clever, but not as universal or as visionary as it could have been. Or corageous as Richard said.

Presumably the administrative costs and the fact that no school will have 100% of parents paying the 'voluntary' fee will mean that some schools asking for more than $100 will still be better off taking the money. Plus, I expect there will be some extra push back from parents who receive a request for a voluntary fee from a school that chose to reject extra $ from the government.

Overall, my feeling is that parents hate these requests for voluntary fees, and Labour will get brownie points for doing something about it, regardless of the details. The big question is will it translate into people changing their vote to LAbour.

Payment rates vary, even at my local decile 10 school it's less than 70%. I'd imagine that number pluments elsewhere.

It's probably a good deal for any school charging less than $200.

It's another classic redistributive play from Parker, along the same lines of keeping the kiwisaver tax credit with a universial scheme. It's another direct discal trasnfer from higher to lower incomes.

Alan, it's called redistribution and is kinda the cornerstone of democracies with welfare states. Y'know, so those with a tougher start in life have opportunities, we encourage social mobility and that sort of stuff.